Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon RINO TIRIKATENE: I move, That the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

I would like to thank the Justice Committee for their work in considering this bill. They have recommended that it be passed with several amendments that I support in full. The committee received written submissions from 31 submitters, of whom 14 presented an oral submission. The submitters included the judiciary, professional organisations, iwi and their representatives, and interested groups and individuals. I want to thank those that made the effort to submit to the committee.

This Government is committed to strengthening the family justice system, and this bill forms part of a long-term programme of change. An accessible Family Court that operates without undue delay is core to a functioning family justice system. In 2019, the independent panel examining the 2014 family justice sector reforms reported that the family justice system was not performing as it should, and that delay of resolution of cases in the Family Court was widespread. The Family Court deals with diverse issues, including family violence, relationship, property, and the care and protection of children. The effect of delays in the Family Court can therefore be wide-ranging and intersectional. In care of children proceedings, delay can mean that children do not have contact with non-custodial whānau for significant periods of time, which can be detrimental to the wellbeing of tamariki and whānau.

The Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill responds to a specific issue identified by the independent panel: that the high administrative workload of judges contributes to delay. The panel subsequently recommended that a new position be established in the Family Court. This bill establishes the Family Court Associate to take some of the workload off the Family Court judges. By making more effective use of judges’ time, this bill will reduce delay and assist in improving the process and experience of people participating in Family Court proceedings. A key feature of the role is that the Family Court Associate is a judicial officer who is independent from the executive. The bill already has some protections to ensure that the role is independent—for example, they’re appointed in the same way as judges, and their remuneration is independently set. The Justice Committee has recommended some changes to further protect their independence, which I’ll discuss in more detail shortly.

The Family Court Associate will be able to undertake both tasks currently performed by registrars and some Family Court judges’ workloads, including decisions made at the early stage of proceedings in interlocutory matters—such as directing parties to undertake dispute resolution, making orders by consent, appointing lawyers, and convening settlement conferences. The role is balanced to ensure that matters that are complex—or have a significant impact on people or human rights—will remain with judges, including final decisions on guardianship and those that materially affect children. We want Family Court judges to have the ability to concentrate on progressing cases that can be traumatic for children through the court system, instead of focusing on administrative matters. The Family Court Associate will enable them to do just that.

The Justice Committee has recommended some refinements to the bill to assist in reducing delay and to ensure the powers held by the Family Court Associate are appropriately delegated and maintain the independence of the role. The revised bill strengthens the independence of the Family Court Associate by requiring the role to fall under the jurisdiction of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act. This will provide a more transparent process for complaints regarding the conduct of a Family Court Associate. In line with judges and coroners who are subject to the Act, Family Court Associates will have narrower grounds for removal. This means that a Family Court Associate could be removed by the Governor-General on the grounds of inability or misbehaviour or in accordance with the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the Judicial Conduct Panel Act.

The revised bill also expands the immunity of a Family Court Associate to be the same as that of a judge. The purpose of judicial immunity is to promote the independence of the judiciary in decision making and ensure that any judicial powers can be fairly and efficiently exercised without the fear of sanction. This immunity is not defined in legislation but is generally understood to be broad immunity from civil and criminal proceedings when acting in their judicial role.

Both these changes preserve the independence of the court and enable Family Court Associates to exercise their power without fear or favour.

Also included in the revised bill is a new clause requiring the Ministry of Justice to review whether the Family Court Associate role has assisted in reducing delays in the Family Court, and consider whether any amendments are desirable. This review will be undertaken five years after the commencement of the bill. I expect this review would also consider how the role has impacted on participants in the Family Court, including Māori, and this will ensure that we can assess whether the role is operating as intended.

Several more minor amendments have also been included in the revised bill. These amendments make small changes that will support the purpose and efficient operation of the role. They also ensure that tasks allocated to Family Court Associates are appropriate and that more significant or complex matters remain with a judge. Again, I’d like to express thanks to the select committee for their amendments to the bill.

So, in summary, introducing the Family Court Associate role is just one part of a long-term programme of change in the family justice system and one more step towards a system that is responsive to the needs of whānau and ensures timely access to justice. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr Penk, you were to take a call, but I think, given the time, we could leave—

Chris Penk: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was just wondering if we can get your guidance on a scenario in which the House would benefit from a full 10 minutes’ worth of dissertation from me, but this is probably not the time of the week to hear it—so I wonder, in such a situation, if you might consider looking to check in case it’s ticked over to 4.55 p.m.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Penk, I’m sure that that would be a unanimous vote for the 10 minutes, were I to put it. However, to save the House the trouble, I will actually make a decision that we will avoid that and that I will now declare that the debate be interrupted and set down for resumption the next sitting day. So the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 March 2023.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 4.55 p.m.